Some thoughts about consciousness and death

[Anonymous No.11293202]

I have a very rough theory about consciousness a possibly the afterlife/reincarnation. I’m currently in that existential quarter-life-crisis stage, and I’ve been thinking about the inevitability of death and the prospect of not existing a lot. I’m agnostic (probably more towards the atheist side), so I really don’t have any kind of religious reassurance, so I guess my desperate attempt to find some secular method of soothing my existential angst has led me to thinking this up.
Just to clear things up, I have a very basic understanding of physics, philosophy and neuroscience, but I’d still really appreciate it if any of you would take the time to read this and let me know if I’m just being a pretentious idiot. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11293204]

>>11293202
You can’t be certain your body exists or is just a really advanced simulation, but you know your consciousness must exist. It’s the only thing you can sure does exist. In a sense, you’re just consciousness. For example, you never remember falling asleep, just being extremely tired then awakening (or if immediately cutting from awake to awakening if you were knocked out, for example), because when you’re asleep your unconscious, and it’s impossible to be aware of being unconscious. In this sense, you can only be sure you still exist when you’re consciousness, and so existence is just consciousness.
We need memory and consciousness to provide context to understand what we think and perceive as we think and perceive it and then to reflect on it. Everything we think and perceive technically already happened by the time we’re aware (or “conscious”) of it (e.g. a few millisecond time lag between the retina detecting something and the electrical impulses reaching the CNS), which technically means we actually exist in the future (by a few milliseconds). So, to be aware of anything happening in the “present”, our conscious mind (or at least the possibility of it still being there) has to exist in the future, either immediately (as you normally perceive time) or at some point (i.e. when you wake up).
If there ever comes a point where you become permanently unconscious/stop existing (i.e. death) then you wouldn’t be able to consciously perceive what was happening in the instance before that, and since you wouldn’t be conscious in that instance, neither would you in the one before that, or before that etc. etc. This implies that to be conscious in one instant, there can never come a time when your consciousness stops existing, because if death means no possibility for conscious awareness then you never would have been able to be consciousness in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11293207]

>>11293204
So, what could this mean? That your consciousness, once created, lasts eternally? That after death it enters the afterlife? It ascends to a higher dimension/plane of existence? It gets reincarnated? I have an idea:
Time is a dimension, like X, Y or Z. Our human brains/consciousnesses perceive length, height and width naturally and can wilfully move between them, BUT we perceive time linearly, from A (birth) to B (death). We can perceive it at different rates (e.g. boredom can make it feel slower) but it can only be linearly in ONE direction, only from A to B.
Let’s say you’re stuck on a tightrope (representing the dimension of length, X). You can move anywhere along it between and up to either end (but not past those two points) at any speed you wish. What if there was some higher dimensional being that perceived time the same way we perceive X, Y and Z? like us and the tightrope? It came into existence (born?) at point A and it’s body eventually dies at point B along the time axis, but it can move freely, at any rate and in any direction, along this axis between and up to A and B. This would essentially make it immortal by our standards, because unlike us (as far as we know) it doesn’t have to go from A to B, it can just exist between them.
What if this is the same for humans? Our consciousness can only exist between A and B and does so eternally, except we just perceive it moving in one direction, whereas they can experience it simultaneously and/or have free control over their position in it (like how we can move freely along X, Y or Z)? So, as soon as we get to B (die) out consciousness just goes straight back to A (birth) and loops infinitely, making us “immortal” (in a sense), just like those higher dimensional beings, except just perceived linearly not simultaneously?

[Anonymous No.11293208]

>>11293207
*I’m counting subconscious thought (e.g. dreams) as being a form of consciousness (you are either unconscious or unconscious, in the same way that you either exist or don’t).
**I’m using “instance” to represent the smallest amount of time the brain/consciousness can comprehend.
***Use “birth” and “death” just as a simplified to represent the start and end of consciousness in time.
****Obviously this is a very rough idea and the reality is probably very nuanced. For example, when does consciousness start in children/foetuses? When did the first consciousness evolve? Was there a cut-off point (i.e. a single mutation caused it to come into existence in one generation, or it was given to us by god?) or was it a gradual development?

[Anonymous No.11293210]

>>11293207
maybe

[Anonymous No.11293212]

>>11293202
>>11293204
>>11293207
You're retarded and your hypothesis is not only very shitty, it also has nothing to do with science.
But then again, I can see why retarded schizos would flow in from /x/ and /pol/ and try to mask their lack of scientific knowledge by talking out their ass about subjects they know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.11293229]

>>11293202
Can you explain more about the last part in your second post? The part about never coming a time when your consciousness stops existing.

[Anonymous No.11293246]

>>11293229
*Again, I just want to reiterate that this is all just a very rough idea that I have
Everything we presently experience and think has a time lag, so is technically happening in the past, and the only reason we can experience it is because we have the mental faculties to do so in the future from what we’re presently experiencing, right?
So imagine your life as a series of instances, with the final instance before permanent unconsciousness (death) being instance n. According to my understanding then, you cannot be conscious during n, because in the next instance your consciousness doesn’t exist anymore. But then this also means you can’t be conscious during n-1 either, because you can’t be during n. So then this means you can’t be conscious during n-2 either, or n-3 etc. etc. basically meaning your consciousness has be infinite to exist in the first place.
You can still be unconscious at certain times in your, like when you’re sleeping, but you always wake up from then and become conscious again. So I guess what I’m suggesting is that consciousness doesn’t “end”, but instead exists between A and B on the “time axis”, and each time it’s reached the end it loops around and starts in the same direction all over infinite times.
Does that help it make any more sense? Or am I still just talking out of my ass?

[Anonymous No.11293249]

>>11293204
>This implies that to be conscious in one instant, there can never come a time when your consciousness stops existing
That doesn't make any sense.

Your brain takes in sensory information and forms a model influenced by your expectations and experiences. This, along with the physics of senses, makes your construction of reality actually be a little delayed from reality. Nevertheless, if you destroy your brain, you no longer make the model and your consciousness ends.

[Anonymous No.11293252]

>>11293208
yeh it was gradual m8, being consciouss of surrounding has put us on top of the food chain

[Anonymous No.11293256]

>>11293246
>>11293249
Yeah sorry I'm not very good at trying to word this. does this explanation make any more sense?

[Anonymous No.11293266]

>>11293256
it sounds like Zeno's paradox.

My computer always takes a little bit of time to do a calculation, every state needs the previous state to move. Nevertheless if I pull the plug it dies.

[Anonymous No.11293285]

>>11293204
Let's say there's some kind of recorder that records numbers shown to it on a screen. It however does this with a lag, it takes time for it to process the latest number it is shown. So the latest number it is aware of is never the currently shown one on the screen, but the one before that. So if it is destroyed in the midst of this, the last number it is aware of is the second last number it was shown. It was still "alive" when the last number was shown, but its last "conscious" moment was when the second last number was shown. Why would its consciousness need to be eternal?

If you have existential angst about death and non-existence I suggest you to read on philosophy of personal identity and think about what makes you who you are, and in particular try to think whether the common intuition that there even is some definite property of "you"-ness that is maintained through your life, suddenly pops up and equally suddenly disappears makes sense. And the intuition that your relation to the consciousness of your past selves (particularly the moments you don't remember) is qualitatively different to your relation to the consciousness of others.

[Anonymous No.11293291]

>>11293212
This. I rarely post and stick to lurking because I'm a brainlet when it comes to actual scientific reasoning, so I don't shit up the board with stupid threads.

[Anonymous No.11293303]

>>11293204
>>11293207
My friend, you are on the right path, I was here about a year ago. Your second post misses the mark by a bit.

Here's the key thing, you have never defined "you" in this post, the conscious observer. "You" are eternal, but who exactly is he?

The answer comes from open/empty individualism. It cleanly resolves the conundrum and makes tons of sense from this perspective. You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.11293307]

>>11293303
Oh and by the way anon, you are enlightened now. Welcome to my club.

[Anonymous No.11293313]

>>11293202
You should keep thinking about these questions but if you want to try to arrive at anything accurate don't be so influenced by some misled desperate instinct that you want to survive. You will end in any meaningful sense of the word, whether or not you are comfortable with that fact.

Oh and also try and avoid becoming a retard like >>11293303 who took LSD once and then decided that awareness is something metaphysical without realizing that their view is still dualist.

[Anonymous No.11293315]

>>11293313
no, brainlet, my view is monist.
Only consciousness exists, that was the final redpill.

But please, tell me where you disagree.

[Anonymous No.11293321]

>>11293315
>literally said "doesn't realize his view is still dualist"
>responds with "no my view is monist"

You are still implicitly separating consciousness. You consider consciousness to be some atomic indivisible existence that is fundamentally distinct from the "physical world" which you might call non-existent or perhaps illusory. Consciousness is a property of matter and energy, perhaps more complex but no more mysterious than the property of being red for instance.

Admittedly I am assuming some of your position based off of one sentence you said so feel free and correct me.

[Anonymous No.11293325]

>>11293202
I'll preface what I say with the fact that I am completely uneducated in any sort of field currently and I'll likely not contribute to the discussion in any true sense. With that said, I do enjoy the topics of consciousness, death, afterlife, etc. So let me challenge your (mostly) philosophical definitions and ideas.

To start off with, we need a common understanding of what we both perceive as "consciousness". Sadly, defining that dips into non-scientific areas such as philosophy, so let's ignore that part and jump straight into your example of falling asleep. You state that "you never remember falling asleep", but are you saying that from an objective perspective, or from your own? I myself(biased), do remember falling asleep in most cases. I'll also realize I'm in a dream and my mind will sometimes decide to shunt itself back awake. In these cases my body will remain asleep(sleep paralysis) but I'll be fully conscious. Likewise, the opposite occurs where I'll realize I'm asleep, remember falling asleep, but stay "unconscious" by my own will, effectively enjoying the perks of a lucid dream. In this case would you say I'm conscious? Unconscious? Or in some sort of state between the two?

[Anonymous No.11293328]

>>11293321
You realize monist = mono = 1 is not the same as dualist = dual = 2.

You seem to belive everything is physical, that there is some reality outside of consciousness. Why do you need that assumption?

You are right, the "physical world" is gay and doesn't exist. All is in consciousness, which is not a property of matter. Rather, matter and physical law is just what we call the deterministic evolution of a global consciousness.

Maybe this analogy helps, there is no real world. The entire world is played out by the global consciousness, the "mind of god", of which you yourself only see a small sliver of.
There is no need to assume some objective, non-mental reality.

[Anonymous No.11293332]

>>11293325
this is kinda beside the point, what OP meant is that during a deep sleep, or when you die, you do not have a consciousness to realize you are dead. From your internal point of view, you can never die.

[Anonymous No.11293339]

>>11293332
Isn't that just effectively the idea behind quantum immortality?

[Anonymous No.11293344]

>>11293339
it's similar in terms of it's consequences if thought about naively, but it doesn't need the quantum mechanism. Anyway, the corrected version of OPs thoughts are known as Open Individualism,

[Anonymous No.11293345]

>>11293328 yeah I'm sorry, this >>11293332 is more what I meant, I was just trying to come up with an example.
And dw I also acknowledge that I'm no expert in any of these fields either, this was just some rough thought I've had over the last few months.
I also understand that there’s a lot of ambiguity in what counts as conscious or subconscious thought too. I’d say for the sake of argument that subconscious thought is a type of conscious thought, so that I can clearly define it as being either conscious or unconscious, in the same way that you’re either dead or alive, or exist or don’t exist. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.11293351]

>>11293313
Yeah I understand I'm probably really biased by my state of mind at the moment, and dw I'm way to scared of taking shit like LSD because that would probably just send me spiralling even further down. I'll keep working at it and try and educate myself further on these topics (luckily I'm getting a few suggestions on related theories/philosophies in these replies).

[Anonymous No.11293357]

>>11293345
yeah, you are correct here

subconscous and conscious thought are both states of consciousness, the main difference is that one of them is also a state of self-consciousness (awareness of the self layered in)

[Anonymous No.11293368]

>>11293328

You are borderline schizo.

>You seem to belive everything is physical, that there is some reality outside of consciousness. Why do you need that assumption?

What you seem to be getting at is that your perspective is one which only requires the existence of consciousness and not a "physical reality" which includes consciousness (a la Occam's Razor). You seem to greatly misunderstand just how large your assumptions are. The 'physical universe' including all conscious behavior can in principle be modeled perfectly with a set of formalized laws, possibly represented mathematically. These laws are extremely simple compared to an system as vastly complex as what we call consciousness, and this isn't even attempting to address your "global consciousness" idiocy. This is the exact same issue with the argument that a god existing first is simpler than the universe arising without a god, a consciousness which is not explained further is a far larger assumption then a comparatively extremely simple mathematical description.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that some experience you had gave you some enormously profound epiphany about the fundamentals of the universe. My guess is you had said experience while you were overstimulating the part of your brain which has the exact function of deciding how profound an idea is.

[Anonymous No.11293372]

>>11293368
not that anon but to you, is the "physical" to you completely reducible to mathematical structures and relations? is there anything more to physical existence than abstract, mathematical existence?

[Anonymous No.11293373]

>>11293368
Why not both? It doesn’t really matter if the electricity has a personality. Still I hope it does.

[Anonymous No.11293374]

>>11293345
*Sorry I meant to reply to >>11293325 with this too

[Anonymous No.11293379]

>>11293368

no, no, no
That would be exactly the argument I would use to convince you out of your position.

My view: What if "Physical Laws" are just "Laws of how consciousness changes over time", no need for physical reality

Your view:
There is some physical reality which operates according to physical laws -> magically creates consciousness (solve the hard problem, there is no hard problem in my view)

I don't have to assume anything other than conscious experience which I know exists.

You have to assume an entire world of physical things, and let me remind you, no one has ever "seen a physical thing". By definition they are outside your conscious.

I came to this view gradually over ~10 years while thinking about questions like OP asked himself. I've never taken drugs or other kike shit.

You still haven't explained to me why you are assuming there exists an entire unknowalbe world outside consciousness, sounds a lot like assuming god to me.

[Anonymous No.11293389]

>>11293372
>>11293373

I certainly don't believe there is anything metaphysical that could not in principle be described by such laws if that's what you are asking.

In my view the most meaningful way to define existence is to say that if you can model the universe perfectly without some element in the model, that element does not exist, and inversely if that element is required for the model to be accurate, it does exist.

Obviously in practice our brains don't model the environment around them as the fundamental mathematics, we have evolutionary been incentivized to make compromises by sacrificing precision for computational simplicity. That isn't necessarily to say that the less accurate more simple models (read higher level abstractions) are fundamentally non existent though, a chair, a gust of wind, and yes, the mind, are all elements parts imprecise models, but still models which are relatively *accurate* compared to alternatives of similar computational complexity. I would say they still exist.

Ultimately my view is more grounded in this precision/accuracy perspective, what precise threshold or definition you want to use for existence within this framework is somewhat subjective and fuzzy, however to say that electricity has a personality seems to me to either a) imply incorrect consequences or b) imply no different consequences which means that a simpler model (one without a personality) would be exactly the same and so such a thing cannot be said to meaningfully exist under my definition.

[Anonymous No.11293392]

>>11293389
just to be clear, the electricity fag wasn't me

[Anonymous No.11293394]

>>11293379
>You still haven't explained to me why you are assuming there exists an entire unknowalbe world outside consciousness, sounds a lot like assuming god to me.
Okay here’s one it’s technically a fallacy but more of a hypothetical than an argument.
Having had discovered many things which had not been previously perceived by you, and recognizing the limits of your sensory perception, extrapolating beyond what can be perceived might glean what is yet to be discovered.
Regardless of it being unknown, my real argument is that if consciousness is all that is knowable and any world outside consciousness is unknowable, it lends a sort of realness to the inner worlds of your consciousness
diff anon

[Anonymous No.11293395]

>>11293389
tl;dr sort of, if a tree falls and nobody hears it does it make a sound?

[Anonymous No.11293404]

>>11293389
Yeah but in what way, if any, you give a special "physically existing" status to our universe as opposed to some arbitrary made up mathematical structure? Doesn't that have to come from conscious experience or qualia that we admit not to be fully describable by mathematics OR we're forced to go some mathematical platonist route (like Max Tegmark goes with his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis). I guess we could indeed postulate some third category of more-than-mathematical physical existence that also has nothing to do with consciousness, but to me that would be the most redundant and Occam's razor violating thing to do since it doesn't explain anything we experience.

We don't necessarily need to say that "all matter is conscious", just that they have potential experiential qualities that math fails to describe, if we don't want to go all the way to MUH.

[Anonymous No.11293406]

>>11293212
stfu most of the people on this board are stone cold morons who mask their inability to think independently and logically with their fucking undergrad freshman homework and sperg like donkeys when people discuss actual fucking science here. Neck yourself and fuck off to wherever you came from you don't speak for anyone on this board except maybe a few other psued half wits

[Anonymous No.11293408]

>>11293379

Frankly I also agree that the hard problem is not particularly hard. Consciousness is a complex system that is difficult to predict like a hurricane, but analogously the combined behavior of neurons aren't any more "mysterious" than the combined behavior of air and water atoms.

Even if you could rigorously demonstrate how you can formally derive physical laws from "global consciousness" (I very sincerely doubt you can), I am quite unconvinced that assuming the existence of fundamental physical laws which can explain all conscious behavior is somehow a larger assumption than a global consciousness which seems to add nothing of tangible value to the picture. Equating physical laws to god as opposed to something you literally called a "global consciousness" also seems to be a particularly twisted perspective.

[Anonymous No.11293412]

>>11293389
I already responded to your /x/ thread anon. I wrote this article. This is how it is and how it works period full stop, not up for debate
http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

You either understand it or you don't and it isn't even that complex it is actually basic level science yet 95% of the imbeciles open this board can't even understand it so never ask them anything. They are so far up their own asses on this board and so hopelessly inept all they can do is use an abacus so they are best left in the dungeon and kept away from any actual science or discussions thereof

[Anonymous No.11293437]

>>11293408
Can we even coherently describe a physical world without first assuming consciousness as something given, primary and intuitively understood? What is a physical world even describing if not experience, either actual or potential, and the regularities, patterns and mathematical extrapolations thereof? It seems to me that physical existence is rather vacuous without describing it in terms of consciousness somehow, which on other hand to most people is something they feel they directly know of.

[Anonymous No.11293445]

>>11293404

I find this a very interesting question, how can we say that one mathematically defined system (us) exists and another arbitrarily chosen one does not exist in the same way?

This first thing I want to recognize about this question is that we are treading into much less rigid territory and nothing I or anyone can say about it can be said with any sort of confidence, at least not in the same way you can be confident about a scientific theory. After all the "existence" of some completely separated mathematical universe has by definition, exactly zero implications on ours and anything we could ever interact with, so this question is certainly outside the realm of the scientific method to approach. As a matter of fact, any conclusion you come to will invariable rely on however you decide to define "exist" which could be argued is entirely arbitrary as again, there is no experimental way to delineate one definition as more valid than another, nothing to ground your deduction.

So do we give up and just say the question isn't meaningful? I personally think we can at least think about it a bit more. While how you define "exist" is on the surface arbitrary, we can probably at least examine which definitions allow for which properties that we might expect existence to have. In particular the definition I used is centered around the property that something that exists within a system must have some consequence within the system, if you removed it the system would change. You may notice that this definition is actually a relative one, I am defining existence *in respect* to a system. Under this definition the existence of another system entirely is simply out of scope. While I don't expect to come to anything like an rigid conclusion I'm curious to hear alternative perspectives and consider this further.

[Anonymous No.11293450]

>>11293204
Please take rigorous calculus

[Anonymous No.11293456]

>>11293412
>http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

I'd bother to engage with this kind of stuff more seriously if the material wasn't paired with poorly edited stock images 90% of the time. can someone explain this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.11293459]

>>11293456
I am not trying to impress you with shiny trinkets anon I only care about the work which is for serious students who find such things trivial

[Anonymous No.11293480]

>>11293459
Thank you anon.

[Anonymous No.11293483]

>>11293437

If I understand correctly you are saying that we can only meaningfully describe physical laws insofar as they affect our observation and experience. I don't know that I even necessarily disagree with this statement itself in isolation.

That said, I fear that that the perspective that someone is grounded solely by experience can dangerously collapse into a misguided almost dualism, putting a wall up between your experience and the things causing said experience. After all, even what you are experiencing the moment does not truly have a unified experiencer, part of your brain resolves a visual image, another part of your brain connects this image with a chunk of neurons which represent more abstract category of object, which then activates other parts of the brain representing the qualities and behaviors you have come to learn about said object, etc. This is all part of the brain's simulation of it's surrounding environment, it's very clear why constantly iterating on the model of this simulation, making it more accurate or less difficult, would be favorable for the individual with the brain, so it's no surprise that we are deeply curious creatures who seek out more and more fundamental and precise descriptions of our universe.

I don't mean to get too long-winded, my ultimate point is that in my perspective a description of the universe in which consciousness is a complex emergent behavior composed of billions of moving parts *does* more accurately reflect the observations and experiences we have as opposed to a description which presumes something about these very experiences prior.

[Anonymous No.11293484]

Imagine coping so hard with death, you make up all this bullshit

[Anonymous No.11293486]

>>11293412
>Blavatsky was correct in her assessment that the first race of humans were ethereal beings which she called the Polarians, it was not speculation it is provable science. The Hutchison effect and Philadelphia experiment demonstrate how matter transmutates when you make it vibrate at different frequencies. The reason there were giants in the ancient world is because they were vibrating at higher frequencies than we do with a weaker magnetic field making them less dense and therefore more ethereal in nature. The reason we evolve and de-evolve at cyclical rates is because of the orbit of the planets which is of course cyclical and we measure these cycles calling them “years”, but there are greater measurements as well such as in the Mayan system known as great years, in Vedic knowledge these are called yugas, in the western tradition ages, epochs etc which are all based on the procession of the equinox and what planet is ruling the age among other cosmic entities like our twin star Sirius and even radiation belts we pass through as explained in the Das Vril Projekt video, which is a video about the research the 3rd Reich did into these topics.

The absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.11293490]

>>11293484
As far as I’m concerned death doesn’t even exist. I haven’t even died so far, honestly I kinda doubted it from the beginning. I’ll believe it when I see it.

[Anonymous No.11293497]

>>11293486
>has no clue wtf that shit even means
>zero argument
>nuh uh because reasons

the absolute state of /sci/ indeed

[Anonymous No.11293514]

>>11293445
Even when you can't do experiments you still have Occam's razor. First as I argued before any kind of non-mathematical reality fluid that makes other structures "physically real" but doesn't have anything to do with qualia violates Occam's razor. What you could do is to ascribe some necessary mathematical properties for a structure to have to count as physically existing. Certainly the set of all prime numbers seems to lack those, we could say that time and space at least are necessary. But still physical existence is entirely derived from and reduced to mathematical description. Some of these mathematical structures might have nothing to do with the structure you're in, so you could say that as far as you're concerned, they don't exist. But you would have to admit that for anyone existing in the other structure, they could say the same about your structure and be equally right, unless you again want to arbitrarily violate Occam's razor. I'm also personally tempted to say that structures that never and ever have any conscious observers don't really exist, as there's nobody for whom they exist.

You are also I think forced to make the bold claim that our consciousness not only reduces to physical stuff but to pure mathematical structure and logical relations, since as far as I understand you don't want to take consciousness as anything irreducible. I'm personally agnostic on that, it has its advantages but it's incredibly hard to imagine and intuitively it seems that math in itself isn't "anything", just something we made up to describe the quantitative aspects of non-mathematical "stuff", but it would be the ultimate application of Occam's razor if possible.

[Anonymous No.11293535]

>>11293483
>After all, even what you are experiencing the moment does not truly have a unified experiencer
yes. Descartes was partly right, but we need to put a ~ mark before the "I". We definitely need to be reductionist about our personal identity, which is too complicated an entity to presume as something primary. About conscious experience and qualia, I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.11293571]

>>11293514

If I understand your first point you are saying that if we take a mathematical description of our universe to be real (by whatever criteria you may decide like containing a consciousness as you proposed) we are not justified in arbitrarily excluding any other mathematical description which also meets this criteria, in particular by Occam's razor.

I think this is at least reasonable, but perhaps be aware that really what you are saying is that these very criteria themselves are subject to Occam's razor, the exclusion of other potential universes is after all, just another set of criteria. I personally would be careful about resorting to the razor in this case, or any method of preferring one set of criteria over another. The reason is that Occam's razor is simply a tool to assist deciding between alternatives which we can't distinguish because of practical limitations, but which *are* distinguishable in principle, it works because our universe tends to work off of simpler laws rather than complex ones, you might argue that this law is a property of our physical universe, not something more universal to all conceptual mathematical universes (there may even be something in there about a consciousness needing a universe for which this is true, anthropic principle).

[Anonymous No.11293575]

>>11293514
>>11293571

The way I see it though taking these different definitions of the existence of conceptual universes truly are not distinguishable even in principle. From my perspective It isn't that there is a right answer and we have no tools to reach it (so we must rely on things like Occam's razor), but it's that no definition can meaningfully be said to be more "valid" than another, it truly is arbitrary.

Your second point however, is something that is addressable much more directly. Consciousness is certainly an observable aspect of our universe, and yes I have no problem with the conclusion that our conscious minds can be perfectly mathematically described, and I absolutely agree that this satisfies Occam better than alternatives. I appreciate the concern that mathematics is artificial, at the level of writing out symbols it almost certainly is, but I think that at the end of the day mathematics is simply the word we use to describe the methods we use to rigorously discuss formal systems.

[Anonymous No.11293654]

>>11293571
>>11293575
The definitions are optional and to some extent arbitrary, but I think just from the intuitive understanding of term "physical" and its meaning, it's obvious that some structures fit a lot better than others and some not meaningfully at all. We could reject the distinction on the grounds that there's no way to draw the line that's both rigorous and intuitively satisfying, but I don't think Occam's razor really applies to those criteria. It doesn't force us to define words arbitrarily widely.

Practically and scientifically I guess the definition of the physical world will always be "the one we find ourselves in" (including universes that somehow affect or explain our observations, no matter how roundabout). That's OK, as long as we recognize it's just that for egocentric and pragmatic reasons.

[Anonymous No.11293680]

read about terror managament theory

[Anonymous No.11293713]

>>11293406
lol gettem

[Anonymous No.11293740]

>>11293207
Our, yours, mine, it's all the same process in the background

[Anonymous No.11293764]

>>11293202
>2nd April, 2016
This is the date when when my life started to take a turn for the worse. Some things I could have done better and avoided, others were out of my control, just bad luck. I also took some very poor decisions and didn't have courage when it counted the most.
My life before this date wasn't perfect either but I was 100% satisfied with how I had lived up to that point. This bad streak continued for upto 2 years upto mid-2018. Since then I've got my life back on track and am quite satisfied. But I believe it could have been at least twice as better if not for my bad streak.
So does anyone know how to go back in time to your younger body with present memories intact? Oh, what I wouldn't give to time travel in this way back to 2nd April 2016.
Your help would be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.11293768]

>>11293406
>talking about schizo shit like reincarnation is independent thinking

[Anonymous No.11294032]

>>11293768
>he doesn't even understand E=mc2 and the law of conservation proves reincarnation for fact, full stop

You gave to go back, go find an accounting board you ain't no scientist you are what us actual scientists call a hack

[Anonymous No.11294042]

I was the guy posting this, just woke up:
>>11293379
>>11293303


>>11293394
I agree with that, are you the same guy that was this:>>11293389

>>11293395
Yes, in the mind of the global consciousness.
>>11293408
You missed the point completely. The hard problem is actually impossible to solve if you assume physicalism. Your model cannot explain why any consciousness exists at all.

My model assumes consciousness as a prior, fundamental thing (something like how a physicist would assume strings without proof, except mine is more grounded).

The "laws of consciousness" are really the same as the laws of physics, just worded in a way that describes what you would measure or see, rather than claiming an objective reality.
I don't have to formally derive anything, it's just a shift in perspective.

We both assume (for good reason) the existence of some physical/conscious laws that govern the evolution of the universe/the global consciousness. The difference is you also assume an entire unknowable "physical universe" on top of that.

>>11293437
This guy phrases things in a different way, I more or less agree.

>>11293483
No! No dualism, there is only experience, nothgin causing it. Experiences change and evolve over time, like atoms move around over time, but nothing physcial cuases the experience.

>muh emergent behaviour
This doesn't explain anything, how does any consciousness arise at all from purely physical things. If you are a panpsycist, you are a weak dualist.

>>11293535
Yes, the proper "I" here comes from open individualism

>>11293575
My point is my view more closely adheres to Occams Razor.

[Anonymous No.11294047]

>>11294032
>>he doesn't even understand E=mc2 and the law of conservation proves reincarnation for fact, full stop
They don't.

[Anonymous No.11294426]

>>11293202
If nothingness or reality is infinite, then everything not logically impossible, and naturally possible, happens. The universe isn't logically impossible, and it's naturally possible. Therefore, the universe happens, and because the antecedent of nothingness or reality being infinite is never satisfied, i.e. it keeps being infinite, then among others, this exact universe and state of things happens over and over ad infinitum. So you exist infinitely. Since you can apparently be you only one at a time, it stands to reason that upon your death, you would go on to be you in another universe. But wait. Just why would you go on to be you in another universe? Why are you even you in this universe? You either know what I mean, or you're an actual NPC, what philosophers refer to as a zombie. That "you" in question is your soul. So, it'd probably be prudent to investigate the existence of God whilst not assuming He's incompetent, i.e. start with the largest, most successfully-influential movement in history: Christianity

[Anonymous No.11294449]

>>11294047
>hur dur I say stup

I said go back people are discussing science here which is obviously outside your wheelhouse try /lgbt/ it is more your speed

[Anonymous No.11294518]

>They are so far up their own asses on this board and so hopelessly inept all they can do is use an abacus
kek

Weirdly enough 4chan becoming more and more into religion/esoterics/spirituality lately
Are people done with science worship and the pendulum swinging back? Counter-initiation? Or i just see what i want to see?

[Anonymous No.11294617]

>>11294449
>I said go back people are discussing science here
Yes, just not in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11294771]

>>11293325
Philosophy is a branch of science.

[Anonymous No.11294784]

>>11294617
Why are you still here they are looking for you in /lgbt/

[Anonymous No.11294794]

>>11294617
I'm the CEO of science fuck off you're fired go back to beating off to anime

[Anonymous No.11295397]

>>11294518
"The first sip of a glass of natural science will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God awaits you"
-Heisenberg